https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851810

Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rc040203@freenet.de Depends On| |833622 (mingw-gmp)

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851810

--- Comment #2 from Thomas Sailer t.sailer@alumni.ethz.ch --- Well spotted, thanks.

Removed autotools BR; but didn't bump the release.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851810

--- Comment #4 from Thomas Sailer t.sailer@alumni.ethz.ch --- Are you sure it's not some caching issue on your side? When I download the spec url, there's only 6 BRs: mingw{32,64}-{filesystem,gcc,gmp}

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851810

Kalev Lember kalevlember@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |kalevlember@gmail.com

--- Comment #6 from Kalev Lember kalevlember@gmail.com --- Oh and I guess the following can also be deleted, as you are removing all the documentation down below?

iconv -f iso-8859-1 -t utf-8 doc/mpfr.info > doc/mpfr.info.aux mv doc/mpfr.info.aux doc/mpfr.info

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851810

--- Comment #8 from Thomas Sailer t.sailer@alumni.ethz.ch --- (In reply to comment #5)

Hi Kalev,

thanks a lot for your comments!

...

Group: Development/Libraries

Replaced with System Environment/Libraries (like mingw-gmp)

...

%package -n mingw32-%{mingw_pkg_name}

I used mingw_pkg_name because afaik you did and you're my role model for mingw packages :) I changed it to name1

...

BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) %install rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT %clean rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT %defattr(-,root,root,-) iconv -f iso-8859-1 -t utf-8 doc/mpfr.info > doc/mpfr.info.aux mv doc/mpfr.info.aux doc/mpfr.info

Since I'm not terribly interested in EPEL packages for old EPEL releases, I removed all these.

Release bumped to -2

Spec URL: http://sailer.fedorapeople.org/mingw-mpfr.spec SRPM URL: http://sailer.fedorapeople.org/mingw-mpfr-3.1.1-2.fc17.src.rpm

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851810

Erik van Pienbroek erik-fedora@vanpienbroek.nl changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |erik-fedora@vanpienbroek.nl

--- Comment #10 from Erik van Pienbroek erik-fedora@vanpienbroek.nl --- (In reply to comment #9)

Additional question: Does any active of variant of EPEL support any of the mingw-w64 toolchains?

I could be wrong, but AFAIK, all EPELs only support the older mingw32 toolchains. This would mean all Fedora >= 17 mingw-w64 packages would be unsupported for EPEL.

Hi Ralf,

Your assumption is correct. RHEL6 only supports packages based on the old MinGW packaging guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:MinGW_Old

One of the rules of EPEL is that it's forbidden to replace packages which are already in the RHEL trees. Therefore we can't introduce the mingw-w64 toolchain and the new packaging macros in EPEL unless Red Hat decides to introduce the base mingw-w64 packages in RHEL6. As I'm not a Red Hat employee I don't have any further information about any possible plans Red Hat might have about introducing the mingw-w64 toolchain in RHEL6

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851810

--- Comment #12 from Thomas Sailer t.sailer@alumni.ethz.ch --- Done

Spec URL: http://sailer.fedorapeople.org/mingw-mpfr.spec SRPM URL: http://sailer.fedorapeople.org/mingw-mpfr-3.1.1-3.fc17.src.rpm

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851810

Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |t.sailer@alumni.ethz.ch Flags| |needinfo?(t.sailer@alumni.e | |thz.ch)

--- Comment #14 from Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de --- Ping? Thomas, are you still interested in packaging this, or can this BZ be closed?

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851810

--- Comment #16 from Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de --- (In reply to Thomas Sailer from comment #15)

Yes, eventually - unless someone else beats me

Do I understand correctly, you want to continue this review?

In this case, I'd suggest you'd provide an updated package.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851810

Thomas Sailer t.sailer@alumni.ethz.ch changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |NEW Resolution|NOTABUG |--- Keywords| |Reopened

--- Comment #18 from Thomas Sailer t.sailer@alumni.ethz.ch --- (In reply to Ralf Corsepius from comment #17)

More than another week has passed without response.

Shock horror.

Spec URL: http://sailer.fedorapeople.org/mingw-mpfr.spec SRPM URL: http://sailer.fedorapeople.org/mingw-mpfr-3.1.2-1.fc19.src.rpm

$ rpmlint mingw-mpfr.spec mingw-mpfr-3.1.2-1.fc19.src.rpm mingw32-mpfr-3.1.2-1.fc19.noarch.rpm mingw64-mpfr-3.1.2-1.fc19.noarch.rpm mingw32-mpfr-debuginfo-3.1.2-1.fc19.noarch.rpm mingw64-mpfr-debuginfo-3.1.2-1.fc19.noarch.rpm mingw32-mpfr-debuginfo.noarch: E: debuginfo-without-sources mingw64-mpfr-debuginfo.noarch: E: debuginfo-without-sources 5 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings.

Scratch Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6192844

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851810

František Dvořák valtri@civ.zcu.cz changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+

--- Comment #19 from František Dvořák valtri@civ.zcu.cz --- Package Review ==============

Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated

===== MUST items =====

Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 143360 bytes in 8 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic: [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Package functions as described. Euler number is 2.7182818284590452353602874713526624977572470936999595749669131. :-) [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Rpmlint ------- Checking: mingw32-mpfr-3.1.2-1.fc21.noarch.rpm mingw64-mpfr-3.1.2-1.fc21.noarch.rpm mingw-mpfr-3.1.2-1.fc21.src.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint mingw64-mpfr mingw32-mpfr 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:'

Requires -------- mingw64-mpfr (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mingw64(kernel32.dll) mingw64(libgmp-10.dll) mingw64(msvcrt.dll) mingw64-crt mingw64-filesystem

mingw32-mpfr (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mingw32(kernel32.dll) mingw32(libgmp-10.dll) mingw32(msvcrt.dll) mingw32-crt mingw32-filesystem

Provides -------- mingw64-mpfr: mingw64(libmpfr-4.dll) mingw64-mpfr

mingw32-mpfr: mingw32(libmpfr-4.dll) mingw32-mpfr

Source checksums ---------------- http://www.mpfr.org/mpfr-3.1.2/mpfr-3.1.2.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 399d0f47ef6608cc01d29ed1b99c7faff36d9994c45f36f41ba250147100453b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 399d0f47ef6608cc01d29ed1b99c7faff36d9994c45f36f41ba250147100453b

Generated by fedora-review 0.5.0 (920221d) last change: 2013-08-30 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 851810 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, SugarActivity, Perl, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EPEL5, EXARCH, DISTTAG

Package APPROVED.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851810

Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851810

Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851810

--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- mingw-mpfr-3.1.2-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mingw-mpfr-3.1.2-1.fc20

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851810

Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |mingw-mpfr-3.1.2-1.fc19 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed|2013-11-18 00:40:43 |2013-12-11 21:58:47

--- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- mingw-mpfr-3.1.2-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.